agda_job_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does contribute one genuinely useful trait — the call is non-blocking and returns immediately rather than awaiting completion — but it says nothing about what states are reported (pending/done/failed), what happens with an invalid or expired job id, or whether the job remains pollable afterward.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the non-blocking property front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting useful state/error detail, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to adequate, but it never states which states can be reported or how terminal states are surfaced, which is the main thing an agent needs before deciding to poll versus await.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'job' parameter is documented as 'Job id returned by a pending tool result,' so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a one-param tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Report the state') plus a specific resource ('a pending Agda job'), which clearly separates it from agda_job_await and agda_job_await_any, which block on the job. The differentiating clause 'without waiting for it' is implicit rather than naming siblings, so it falls just short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without waiting for it' hints that this is the non-blocking/polling alternative to agda_job_await, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage must be inferred from the contrast with sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.